DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, “the control element” and “the respective capper head” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, “the each movement arm” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, “the movement arm” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, “the control element” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, “the control element” and “the movement arm” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 20, “the plurality of movement arms” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 21-22, claims 2-3, 5-13, 15-19, and 21-22 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 does not include any additional limitations to further limit claim 1, as claim 2 merely recites a limitation already stated in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusconi et al (US 2022/0306442), hereinafter Rusconi, in view of Allen et al (US 2,579,775), hereinafter Allen.
Regarding claim 1, Rusconi discloses a capper carousel (Fig. 1) comprising:
multiple capper heads (Fig. 2, item 7) (Fig. 2, item 2) for capping containers (Fig. 1), wherein the multiple capper heads are arranged in a manner distributed around a circumference of the capper carousel (Fig. 1, cappers 7 are distributed around a circumference of the carousel),
each capper head comprising:
at least one movement arm (Fig. 2, item 54, 50, 25), the movement arm having an actuation section (Fig. 2, item 50) for actuating the at least one movement arm (Para. 0087-0090) and a contact section (Fig. 2, item 54, 60) for contacting the cap (Fig. 2);
an axial movable control element (Fig. 2, item 11, 18) (Para. 0090-0094), which is configured to be brought into contact with the actuation section (Para. 0090-0094) of the at least one movement arm of the respective capper head to effect a movement (Para. 0090-0094) of the at least one movement ar, (Para. 0090-0094) of the respective capper head; and
a cover (Fig. 2, item 21, 22, 20) covering the control element (Fig. 2) of the respective capper head and the actuation section (Fig. 2) of the at least one movement arm (Para. 0060-0065) of a respective one of the multiple capper heads; and
wherein the control element (Fig. 2, item 11, 18) and the actuation sections (Fig. 2, item 50) of the at least one movement arm are received inside the cover (Fig. 2, control element 11, 18 and actuation section 50 are within the cover 20, 21, 22) in at least one of a sealed (Para. 0063) and encapsulated manner
Rusconi is silent about wherein each one of the multiple covers is associated with a respective one of the multiple capper heads. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize multiple covers, one for each capper head, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, Allen teaches a single cover (Allen, Fig. 1, item 68) for each capper head (Allen, Fig. 1, capper head is under shell 63). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Rusconi and Allen to modify the capper carousel of Rusconi to include the individual capper covers of Allen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to provide a capping device which can accommodate variations in size and shape of bottles (Allen, Col. 2, lines 39-43).
Rusconi is silent about the at least one movement arm being a plurality of pivotable movement arms designed as pivot levers.
However, Allen teaches a capper head (Allen, Fig. 2) having a plurality of pivotable movement arms (Allen, Fig. 2, item 49, 51) designed as pivot levers (Allen, Col. 5, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Rusconi and Allen to modify the capper head of Rusconi to include the pivotable movement arms of Allen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to firmly and securely grasp the container during capping (Allen, Col. 5, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 2, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein:
the control element (Fig. 2, item 11, 18) and the actuation section (Fig. 2, item 50) of each movement arm are received inside the cover (Fig. 2, control element 11, 18 and actuation section 50 are within the cover 20, 21, 22) in at least one of a sealed (Para. 0063) and encapsulated manner.
Regarding claim 3, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein:
each movement arm projects from the cover in a sealed manner (Para. 0086), such that the contact section of each movement arm is arranged outside of the cover (Fig. 2, contact second 54, 60 is located outside of cover 20, 21, 22).
Regarding claim 4, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, further comprising a lid (Fig. 2, item 22) that is attached to the underside of the cover (Fig. 2) and through which each movement arm extends in a sealed manner (Fig. 2) (Para. 0086).
Regarding claim 5, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 4, wherein at least one of:
the lid extends in the sealed manner decentrally with respect to the lid, and
each movement arm is pivotally mounted on the lid (Para. 0087-0090).
Regarding claim 6, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 4, further comprising:
at least one sealing device (Fig. 2, item 57) that creates a seal (Fig. 2) (Para. 0092) between the lid and each movement arm (Fig. 2) (Para. 0092), for at least one of sealing a pivoting movement of the respective movement arm, an axial movement of the contact section of the respective movement arm (Para. 0090-0094) (“a pivoting movement” and “a rotational movement” are optional limitations) and a rotational movement of the contact section of the respective movement arm.
Regarding claim 7, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 6, wherein at least one of:
each movement arm has an axial bearing section, in which the contact section is mounted so as to be axially movable, and the at least one sealing device seals an axial movement of the contact section relative to the axial bearing section between the lid and the contact section;
each movement arm has a rotational bearing section in which the contact section is mounted so as to be rotatable, and the at least one sealing device seals a rotational movement of the contact section relative to the rotational bearing section between the lid and the contact section; and
each movement arm is pivotable (Para. 0090-0094) and the at least one sealing device seals a pivoting movement (Para. 0090-0094) of the movement arm between the lid and the contact section (Para. 0090-0094).
Regarding claim 8, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 6, wherein the sealing device has at least one of:
a bellows (Fig. 2, item 57) that expands or compresses axially (Para. 0090-0094) when the contact section moves axially (Para. 0090-0094);
a sealing sleeve that at least one of moves axially with the contact section and expands or compresses axially when the contact section moves axially; and
a radial shaft seal.
Regarding claim 9, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, further comprising:
a pressing device (Fig. 2, item 18, 18a, 18b) with a plunger (Fig. 2, item 18. 18a. 18b) for pressing the cap onto a container mouth of the container (Para. 0090-0094), wherein the plunger projects from the cover in a sealed manner (Fig. 2) (Para. 0090-0094).
Regarding claim 10, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 9, wherein the pressing device further includes: a sealing element (Fig. 2, item 57) which creates a seal between the lid and the plunger (Para. 0090-0094).
Regarding claim 11, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 10, wherein at least one of: the sealing element is a radial shaft seal; the plunger is rotatable; the plunger is axially secured to the lid; and the plunger is arranged centrally with respect to the lid (Fig. 2, plunger 18, 18a, 18b is located centrally, protruding centrally from lid 22).
Regarding claim 12, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the cover is a section of a shaft for rotating the capper head; and the cover supports each movement arm (Fig. 2, cover 20, 21, 22 supports movement arm).
Regarding claim 13, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 12, further comprising:
a bellows (Fig. 5, item 57) arranged coaxially with the shaft (Fig. 2, item 18); and
a radial shaft seal (Para. 0090-0094) which creates a seal (Para. 0090-0094) between the bellows and the shaft (Para. 0090-0094), the radial shaft seal being axially secured to one end of the bellows (Para. 0090-0094).
Regarding claim 14, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein at least one of:
the control element is pneumatically actuated;
the control element includes a control wedge; and
the control element is arranged centrally inside the cover (Fig. 2, control element 11 is located centrally inside cover 20) (Para. 0090-0094).
Regarding claim 16, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein the at least one movement arm has: at least one forming movement arm (Fig. 2, item 7) for forming the cap (Para. 0053-0055), wherein the contact section of the at least one forming movement arm is a forming element (Fig. 2, item 60, 62) for forming the cap (Para. 0087-0094).
Regarding claim 17, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 16, wherein the at least one forming movement arm has at least one of:
at least one roll-on movement arm for inserting a thread into the cap by rolling on against a thread of the container, wherein the contact section of the at least one roll-on movement arm includes a roll-on element and
at least one flanging movement arm (Fig. 2, item 60, 62, 63) for inserting a flanging into the cap (Para. 0087-0094), wherein the contact section of the at least flanging movement arm includes a flanging element (Fig. 2, item 62) (Para. 0087-0094).
Regarding claim 18, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein each movement arm has: at least one gripper movement arm (Fig. 2, item 7) for gripping the cap (Para. 0053-0055), wherein the contact section of the at least one gripper movement arm includes a holding clamp (Fig. 2, item 60, 62) for holding the cap (Para. 0087-0094).
Regarding claim 19, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein each movement arm is pivotable (Para. 0087-0094), and control element is axially moveable (Para. 0090-0094), the control element brought into contact with the actuation section of the at least one movement arm (Para. 0087-0094) effect a pivoting movement of the at least one movement arm (Para. 0087-0094).
Regarding claim 20, Rusconi discloses the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein the cover is one of hood-shaped (Fig. 2, cover 20, 21, 22 is hood shaped) and trough-shaped, and covers the at least one movement arm for protection from cleaning fluid (Para. 0090-0094) during external cleaning of the capper head (Para. 0090-0094).
Regarding claim 21, as combined above, Allen teaches the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein the capper heads each have a central vertical axis (Allen, Fig. 1, central vertical axis runs in the up-down direction through stem 17) therein, and each respective cover (Allen, Fig. 1, item 63) of its respective capper is arranged coaxially (Allen, Fig. 1) with the respective central vertical axis of the respective capper head (Allen, Fig. 1, central vertical axis of shell 63 also runs in the up-down direction through stem 17).
Regarding claim 22, as combined above, Allen teaches the plurality of pivotable movement arms comprise a plurality of swivelable movement arms (Allen, Col. 5, lines 30-40).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusconi in view of Allen further in view of Schoenfelder (US 2018/0354765).
Regarding claim 15, Rusconi in view of Allen is silent about the capper carousel according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one movement arm has multiple movement arms which are arranged in a manner distributed around a central vertical axis of the capper head.
However, Schoenfelder teaches a movement arm (Schoenfelder, Fig. 1A, item 7) that has multiple movement arms (Schoenfelder, Fig. 1A, item 7) which are arranged in a manner distributed around a central vertical axis (Schoenfelder, Fig. 1A, item A) of the capper head (Schoenfelder, Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Rusconi, Allen, and Schoenfelder to modify the capper head of Rusconi in view of Allen to include the multiple movement arms of Shoenfelder. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to allow the capper head to be efficiently and quickly used to attach multiple types of caps (Schoenfelder, Para. 0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731